What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact and Orders of March 25, 2024, rescinded; new Findings of Fact and Order issued finding defendant failed to meet burden of proof on going and coming rule; other issues deferred.
Remittitur issued by the Third District Court of Appeal on July 10, 2025, annulling prior WCAB opinion and remanding for further proceedings; WCAB issues decision after remittitur on March 13, 2026.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 29, 2024.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the going and coming rule applies because applicant's commute was not local, did not have fixed hours, and defendant's evidence was unreliable.
From the decision · page 5Here, the evidence demonstrates that the going and coming rule was inapplicable because the applicant did not participate in a "local commute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours," as required for the rule to apply. First, his commute does not fit within the definition of "local"2 since applicant testified that he traveled in the van for an hour or more in each direction, from Yuba City, California, located in Sutter County, to Winters, California, located in Yolo County. (3/4/24 Transcript of Record, at pp. 27-28.) As the Court noted, the distance from the work site to applicant's home in Yuba City "was approximately 60 miles" and thus outside the definition of "local." (the applicant, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1169.)